Kay

“The fact the passage is dealing with ‘older’ widows and younger ones, gives all the indication that ‘presbyteros’ should be translated older men/women.”
Mark,
Does this mean you are willing to contend that the church was instructed to demand celibacy in exchange for food?
It is so ironic to me that Paul, who
was so concerned to free converts from bondage of law, is treated as a law-giver for later generations.

“You are right to say that there is no ‘gunaikos’ in either mention of ‘elders’ so therefore you rebut your own argument. 1 Tim 3:11 could be either deaconess or wives, but it definitely does not relate to elders? Do you agree?”
Mark,
How does that rubut my own argument? So, you think that, in 1 Timothy 3, Paul would single out the deacons’ wives as having special qualifications, while, in the same passage, he gives no qualifications for elder’s wives?
While I suppose that it is possible that elder’s wives were free from qualifications, why do you think these wives get off scott free?
Isn’t the elder just as important for the church body as the deacon?
Is that the practice in your church congregation?

“In the worst case. But even in the best case, where they teach it as unfortunate remedy, male “rule” is still a sinful consequence. I never will understand how some can interpret what is clearly sinful as God’s intent.”

They still must explain how it could be leadership by design and at the same time an unfortunate remedy for the Fall. The two don’t jibe.

“The comps would tell you it is a result of the fall and sin. They interpret Gen 3 to mean that she desires HIS ”role” as authority.

They teach the sinful consequences of the fall as virtue.”
Lin,
Yes, that’s what they do, but it still breaks down on the fact that all men don’t naturally take the lead.

gengwall,
Ooops – I meant to put “Also” in that first sentence of #35.
“Also, if the “designed to lead” and “designed…”
Looked as though I was disagreeing.

“All of these things may impact HOW we lead, but as with virtually anything, they have both positive and negative impacts on how EFFECTIVE our leadership is. And no biological reality no matter how gender specific it might be grants a whole gender the right to take authority over the opposite gender.”
gengwall,
If the “designed to lead” and “designed to follow” paradigm were true, then one has to wonder why ALL men aren’t leading by nature (without being told it’s their ‘role’) and why all women aren’t following naturally by design? Why is it we have to told which ‘role’ we are assigned. If it’s in each gender’s DNA, then it should be as natural as breathing.

“Gender differentiation in testosterone levels, as one example, is indisputable. Yet – higher testosterone levels can hardly be claimed as a condition necessary for superior leadership. Ironically, the opposite conclusion has more evidence – that elevated testosterone inhibits effective leadership.”
gengwall,
Are you referring the results from the Swiss testosterone studies that came out last year?

“It is especially difficult for most of us to imagine the effect of Paul’s words in a culture where position and status preserved order through basically uncrossable boundries. Paul asserts that when people come into the fellowship of Christ Jesus, significance is no longer to be found in being Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female.”
Frank,
Good point!
Adding to that, I think many people miss the counter cultural nature of what Jesus said regarding patriachial family life. Jesus in Luke (9: 59-60) said to a traveler, “Follow me.” The traveler replied, “Let me bury my father first.” Jesus said in return, “Let the dead bury their dead; you go and proclaim the reign of God everywhere.”
Remember that the man’s father wasn’t dead. The man was affirming his traditional family obligation to stay around until his father died.

Look at how Jesus approached the family values of his day. Jesus started his earthly life as an unplanned pregnancy from his parents’ perspective, and his teenage mother was pregnant before she was married. It’s interesting that those facts haven’t made their way into Christmas carols so far.
There is no reference to Jesus being married and his closest twelve disciples were either single or left their families as quickly as they dropped their fishing nets to follow Jesus’ call.

Look at Jesus’ specific teaching about family according to the Gospel accounts. He predicts that because of Him, “Brothers and sisters will betray each other to death, and parents their children; children will rise up against their parents and have them executed. Everyone will hate you because of me.” Matt. 10:21-22

And how about Matthew 10: 35-37: “For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”
Still, another traveler approached Jesus in this way: “I’ll be your follower, Rabbi, but first let me say good-bye to my people at home.” Jesus answered, “Whoever puts a hand to the plow but keeps looking back is unfit for the reign of God.” (Luke 9:61-62

About this time, Jesus received a letter from an organization called First Century Family Values. It said:
Dear Jesus,
We have noticed some devaluing of traditional family life in your teachings. You do not treasure the family as our people have for centuries. Your preaching against our traditional family values gores against all that we hold dear in our religious and cultural heritage, the very foundation of our society. If you continue to do this we will make you the subject of one or our future market-place programs

Sincerely, Top Patriarch

Jesus evidently did not take heed. A short time later, this happened:
“Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived and sent a message asking for him. A crowd was sitting around Jesus, and they said to him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” Jesus replied, “Who is my mother? Who is my family? “ And looking around at everyone there, Jesus said, “This is my family! Anyone who does the will of God, that person is my sister, my brother, my mother.” Mark 3:31-35

This was quite incredible to Jesus’ original audience, which valued their family traditions above all else.

Mark wrote: “The only two places to suggest women are included in this office are in 1 Tim 3 and Romans 16… To say this is definitive proof is very misleading to suggest. Let me explain, contextually in 1 Tim 3 to insert ‘gunaikas’ where Paul does is unusual, since the verse immediately afterward describes once again the idea of ‘husband of one wife’. The more natural reading would seem to suggest his intention is the ‘wives’ of the deacons talked about as the NIV translates. However it could also mean as you suggest, namely that women are included in the office of deacons. In Romans we have the same delimma. It could rightly mean that Pheobe is a deacon. But it could also equally mean that Paul is simply describing her as a servant.”

Mark,
One more thing I forgot yesterday…Please consider
that in 1 Timothy 3 the KJV, along with various other translations, translates this term as “their wives,” implying that the qualifications given in v. 11 refer to deacons’ wives, rather than to female deacons.
How do we determine which is the best translation? First of all, it is significant that the word “their” is not present in the Greek, although it would have been an expected construction if the intended meaning were “the deacons’ wives.” Most significant of all, however, in my opinion, is the fact that there is no corresponding allusion, in the section on the qualifications of overseers, referencing the overseers’ wives, even though both sections clearly indicate that both an overseer and a deacon should be “the husband of one wife” (or a “one-woman man”). Lest this be regarded as merely an oversight, in the parallel passage in Titus, Paul, while giving the qualifications of overseers, also writes that an overseer should be “the husband of one wife,” yet says nothing regarding the qualifications of the overseers’ wives. It appears highly unlikely, to me, that, in 1 Timothy 3, Paul would single out the deacons’ wives as having special qualifications, while, in the same passage, he completely passes over the qualifications of overseers’ wives. The logical implication, from my perspective, is that Paul, in v. 11, was not referring to “the deacons’ wives,” but rather to “women” in general.

Other translations (most notably, the NASB, the Contemporary English Version, and Young’s Literal Translation) translate this term as “women.” The NIV and ESV both include a footnote indicating either “deaconesses” or “women” as an alternate translation to “wives.”

Mark,
I’d also ask you to please reread 1 Tim. 3:3-17 and Titus ch.1 & 2 keeping in mind what we have put forth here for you to prayerfully consider.

Mark,
I see that Cheryl has thoroughly addressed your reponse to my question #123. I’ll just reiterate a couple of things.

You said #103, “I disagree. Verse 3-16 have nothing to do with women leaders in the church. Paul is clearly instructing Timothy about widows.I fail to see where the ‘requirements and characteristics’ are for the women leaders. Please point these out! Verses 17-21 are about accusations against elders, not summary statements about the leaders. I cannot see where your line of reasoning nor your interpretation of the passage is coming from. Don’t push for a passage about leaders that is clearly not there.”

– regarding this I’ll again quote MacArthur:
*This was not a list of those widows eligible for specially recognized church support (all widows in the church who had no other means of support were; v. 3), but rather those eligible for specially recognized church ministry (cf. Titus 2:3–5). the wife of one man. Lit. “one-man woman” (cf. 3:2,12). –The MacArthur Study Bible*

With regard to this I wrote:
In Titus 2:3 Paul instructs Titus, the pastor of Crete: “Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good.” The Greek word used for these older women is ‘presbutidas’.
These elders are instructed “to teach what is good.”Teach is from ‘didaskolos’ which is the word Paul uses to describe teaching the Gospel…there is no reason to believe that the younger women are the only ones in Titus congregation they taught.

You said: “Important to always keep in close mind is context. Does the passage here address both male and female or just male. Although Paul does use ‘ei tis’ the qualifiers ‘husband of one wife’, ‘managing his family’ (related to Eph 5 as the head) aswell as the correlating passage in Titus 1 show us that Paul is addressing males. I have heard others attempt an argument that legally only men could have multiple partners, but this line of argument is very weak. There is nothing in the passage to think that this is why Paul makes the statement- it is assumption based not on the context of the passage.”

– Now, as you can see from Cheryl’s comments, there can be more than one reason Paul would make stipulations like: “husband of one wife” or “the wife of one man”. (Lit. “one-man woman” (cf. 3:2,12)

These instances are very much like the one you and I agreed on regarding Phoebe. The possibility/probability of female “widow” elders cannot be ruled out. In fact, as you see there is a lot of evidence for it.

“The followup needs to be: “given those differences, what about them makes men better leaders?”…….and…….nothing but crickets.”
gengwall,
I’m writing this down with your 3 Things.

Something else I find interesting about this is if you ask most people “What makes a good leader?” you’re answered by a list of character qualities not a biology lesson. Personally, I’ve never had anyone respond “being male.”

“Well, God has no gender…I’m not sure what you are getting at here.”
gengwall,
Exactly – God has no gender and a lot what we have termed “female/feminine” qualities that cannot be separated from His “male/masculine” qualities along the lines of “Father” or ”Son” which could prove that male/masculine = Father/Leader & feminine/female = Son/Follower/subordinate.
And even if we could do so, that still leaves out the Holy Spirit.

“The significance of God’s name El Shaddai is both interesting and touching.
God (El) signifies the Strong One. The qualifying word Shaddai is formed from the Hebrew word ‘shad’ the breast, invariably used in Scripture for a woman’s breast; e.g. Gen 49:25; Job 3:12;Psa. 22:9; Song 1:13 (and more); Isa. 28:9;; Ezk. 16:7.
Shaddai therefore means primarily ‘the breasted.’ God is Shaddai because He is the Nourisher, the Strength-giver, and so, in a secondary sense, the Satisfier, who strengthened and nourished from the mother’s breast, but also is quieted, rested, satisfied, so El Shaddai is that name of God which sets Him forth as the Strength giver and Satisfier of His people.”
-1909 Schofield Bible

Trying to define ‘roles’ for God is rather like nailing Jello to the wall…

Never mind. I forgot – hierarchist’s doctrine of ESS. But then, where does that leave the Holy Spirit?
Shouldn’t there be third ‘role’?

“If the observable gender differences grant neither gender a leadership advantage, then it can’t be claimed that men are designed to be leaders.”

If you are talking about scientific observation – there they find a lot of over-lapping of “differences.” Too, many to be totally definitive.

What about the fact that Gen. 1:27 says, “So God created man in His own image: in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them’?

Which part of God is the ‘follower’ and which part is the ‘leader’?

…and it’s like a one-two punch – appeal to the pride for the catch and reel them in by “spiritualizing” with the new pre-Fall “roles” – which replaced the previous “because of the Fall” they used at first.

“Yes, Kay, much of the argument is an argument of convenience. That doesn’t change the convincing nature of the argument in their minds.”

gengwall,
What I see is that the argument is brilliant because the “convincing nature” of it is that initial appeal to a man’s pride. I mean, seriously, Paul didn’t pen all the verses like the ones I just mentioned in Phillippians for no reason.

“In their mind then, it is not a pride issue at all. It is a glorifying God issue – it glorifies God when men act in accordance with their God given design. Conversely, it is shameful to a man – in essence a repudiation of his design – if a woman takes his place in leadership (which inherently includes teaching).”

gengwall,
How convienient for them.

“It doesn’t matter to them that scripture never says this literally because they believe scripture says this suggestively.”

Yes, the same reasoning used by polygamists and slave owners.

“Because man has this built in design to lead, and subsequent yearning to fulfill that design, it is shameful for a woman to deny him.”

Interestingly, they come up with “male only leadership” via implication, but deny clear cut examples of female leadership like Deborah and Abigail.

CBMW: “So the issue of shamefulness is at root an issue of doing something that would dishonor the role of the men as leaders of the congregation.”

Cheryl,
Shouldn’t they be more worried about what dishonors God? I think you are spot on to suggest that issues of shame and dishonor go hand in hand with the issue of pride. Didn’t Paul say “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world”?

I couldn’t agree more that Jesus turned men away from such a boastful way and commands all who desire to be the greatest in the kingdom to be the servants of all according to Matt. 20:25-28. The true servant of God will equip all for service without concern over having his or her own honor.

When a man’s shame and dishonor comes before the work of God, something is terribly wrong.
“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!” Phil. 2:5-8
“but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” vs. 3

Frankly, I’ve always envisioned the apostle Paul being shocked and dismayed if he were here to see the number of churches named in his honor – St. Paul’s insert denomination Church.

“Gosh, I hope you all missed me while I was too busy to post 😉 ”

I certainly have! 🙂

Mark wrote: “Now personally i am still undecided and praying that God will help me to know the truth.”
Mark,
I want you to know that I’m praying that as well. Sometimes – as we have discussed in the past – this type of online forum makes discussing things difficult at times because we do not know each other personally. Sometimes we may wrongly interpret one another’s writing – thinking something sounds harsh or critical or misleading – because we don’t really know the other’s personality or character. If only we could sit face to face while discussing much of that would be avoided.

Mark wrote: ” As people who are more interested in the bible and not our own theologies or ideologies, i believe it is inappropriate to mislead in the way you have. You may accept that it means ‘deaconess’ but you should not say it has to mean this when it may not, and there is good biblically evidence contrary.”
Mark,
Where did I say “it has to mean this”? Please reread my #104 comments. I think perhaps you are misunderstanding me.

Mark wrote: “You again make the fundamental mistake when you say things like this…
In Titus 2:3 Paul instructs Titus, the pastor of Crete: “Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good.” The Greek word used for these older women is ‘presbutidas’.
These elders are instructed “to teach what is good.”

This is most definitely not about the office of eldership. You need to stop looking for egalitarian proof texts that are clearly not there. All you are doing is distorting the meaning of the passage. Paul is expounding good biblical qualities and living for the older men/women of the church. This is not about the office of eldership outlined in 1 Tim 2. It is not about elders in the spiritual governing sense.”
Mark,
How am I distorting the meaning? By not interpreting it with the comp’s presupposition that since it is about women it must have some other meaning than “Elders” who are “teaching”?

There is nothing directly in the text to preclude it from being female Elders.

Mark,
You forgot to answer my question regarding 1 Timothy 5:9-15:
Does your church congregation/denomination “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows” and instruct them to remarry? If not, why doesn’t your fellowship uphold these?
And if your congregation does uphold to these instructions, who performs this ministry?

Mark wrote: “However it could also mean as you suggest, namely that women are included in the office of deacons. In Romans we have the same delimma. It could rightly mean that Pheobe is a deacon. But it could also equally mean that Paul is simply describing her as a servant.”
Mark,
Yes, we agree. She can be a deacon if one does not come to the verses about Pheobe with the presupposition that she cannot be a deacon because she is female.

Mark wrote: “In the Old Covenant the elders were ‘older’ men, so it is not surprising that the same greek word is used when both talking about the official work of an elder/overseer and both older men/women. The context of both Tim and Titus reveal that what is being discussed is older men/women not the elders. To get this wrong makes one misunderstand the passage. Therefore the NIV correctly translates the difference between ‘older men/women’ and ‘elders’. Also consider the base of the word ‘presbus’ means ‘elderly’. Therefore you are not exegetically interpreting the passage correctly. You have not taken into account the semantic range of the word in the greek.”
Mark,
I have taken into account the semantic range of the word in Greek. I believe that to say definatively that the context warrants ‘presbutiro’ being given two different meanings in this passage requires interpreting it with the presupposition that ‘presbutiro’ cannot mean female Elders.

Mark wrote: “By the way i never said this
But you insist that after the Resurrection she would be in sin for doing this?

What i did say is that this should not be compared to preaching in the 21st century. Let me be clear that i see that Jesus cared deeply for women and used them in his ministry. I hold to that, i just don’t agree with the way some egals use this out of context and equate it to the spiritual leadership of the church.”
Mark,
What is your reason that it cannot be compared to preaching in the 21st century?

Mark wrote: “What i didn’t like Kay, is that you didn’t make this clear. As people who are more interested in the bible and not our own theologies or ideologies, i believe it is inappropriate to mislead in the way you have. You may accept that it means ‘deaconess’ but you should not say it has to mean this when it may not, and there is good biblically evidence contrary. WE must therefore put ALL the evidence forward to be fair to the bible and to have good biblical discussion.”
Mark,
Why would you think it necessary to characterize me as misleading? You have not listed ALL the evidence in each of your comments, so why are you now requiring it of me? You have thoroughly put forth the “evidence contrary.” I have put forth my evidence. How does that make me the only one of us misleading?

“And ofcourse if being married is a requirement then so is having children if one is going to be consistent.”

pinklight,
Another great point! Some people are only consistent where they choose to be. 😉 For instance – diakonos or “deacon” being used to describe Phoebe is the SAME word Paul uses when he calls Timothy and Titus “servants” or “deacons” of their respective churches. But some insist it really can’t mean the same thing because she’s a woman. And presbituro, they say, can’t mean the same thing when referring to a woman because, well, she’s a woman. Disconnected thinking.